Category Archives: Creationism in Space

Post navigation

Evolutionary scientists some of which hate the use being described as “evolutionary” believe our solar system is 4.5 billion years old, and thus interpret the data within this framework, such as predicting eruptions occurring on Mercury 3.5 billion years ago. However, new discoveries from the Messenger spacecraft flying by Mercury have found compelling evidence of recent eruptions.

“The presence of explosive volcanism on Mercury is a little bit surprising,”says Laura Kerber from JPL

Even more surprising is the fact that Mercury’s activities are similar to those on the Moon as stated here from an email to Astrobiology Magazine.

“Both Mercury and the Moon are a lot smaller than the Earth, and so will have cooled more than Earth since their formation. For that reason, a lot of models would not predict volcanism within the last two billion years..”

But what is even more surprising, that defies billions of years old, water was discovered on Mercury! No suggestion of life forms on Mercury in its supposed distance past, but a shocker for those who believe that the solar system is very old!

“This result was a little surprising, because sharp boundaries indicate that the volatile deposits at Mercury’s poles are geologically young,” said Dr Chabot.

She added: “One of the big questions we’ve been grappling with is ‘When did Mercury’s water ice deposits show up?’ Are they billions of years old, or were they emplaced only recently?

“Understanding the age of these deposits has implications for understanding the delivery of water to all the terrestrial planets, including Earth.”

Overall, the images indicate that Mercury’s polar deposits either were delivered to the planet recently or are regularly restored at the surface through an ongoing process.“

Since creation scientists as well as creationists like myself in general believe the solar system is young and not billion of years old, it’s is reasonable to conclude, there is a youthful process going on in Mercury. But one could suspect, a creation of stories about some sort of space delivery like some sort of unique asteroid which could never be observed nor confirmed that would explain such a youthful appearance to maintain its supposed old age.

They really have their work cut out for them this time in trying to create such a story in order to explain away Mercury’s youthful details so it can fit into their old age framework…

“It’s really hard to understand how an ocean could survive for billions of years inside something as small as Mimas.” -New Scientist

It would make a lot more sense and more scientific without the need to try and fit the data into a particular framework where it doesn’t belong if they cease with the billions of years explanation!

Back in the late 1970’s, evidence for a young universe was very strong (and still is today) but this put secular scientists in a difficult position as National Geographic writes…

“In 1978, he learned in a talk by Princeton physicist Bob Dicke of a problem with the universe—it was too perfect.All sorts of factors, from the workings of atoms to the gravity holding stars together, seem too exquisitely fine-tuned for creating a cosmos in defiance of both rational explanation and what chance would predict.”

“One second after the big bang—and I’m pretty sure that is the example he used—the expansion rate had to be just right to an accuracy of 14 decimal places or our universe would look nothing like it does now.” Just a smidge more expansion and the universe would have blasted itself apart. A tiny bit less and it would have fallen in on itself.Instead it had unfolded just right, balanced on a universe-friendly knife-edge, seemingly for no reason.”

Secular Cosmology was in a major crisis, the evidence was leading towards a purpose which is in the direction of intelligence rather than some random act with no reason. And if it was a random act, then the universe should have been full of cosmic defects which it doesn’t have. This mean their theory wasn’t being endorse by the facts, rather the evidence is leading towards a young universe no older than 10,000 years old!

“In fact, these defects should have been so numerous and so massive that if they actually existed, the age of the universe “would turn out to be about 10,000 years,” Guth says, with a laugh. “This doesn’t turn out to be the case, scientifically.”

Guth knew the evidence could fit into the Biblical time frame but believed explanations (rather than science) were required to skew the evidence out of that direction. You see, science isn’t really disproving the Bible, science is not really at odds with the Bible, only those who reject the Biblical framework have that problem and thus use ‘science’ as a pretext to insert their illogical disbelief.

With a need to force the data into their illogical belief, Guth came up with a solution, one he thought would solve the flatness problem and the horizon problem. This solution was called, “inflation” but it wasn’t easy at first because he came across his first dilemma and that was how to stop inflation once it got started!

In 1981, his inflation theory was falsified because the universe did not turn out to be smooth as predicted. But this ugly theory wasn’t about to die with a beautiful fact that falsified it, many caught on, producing even crazier ideas in order to keep it alive. These crazier ideas cannot be confirmed with normal science methods because they are out of the realm of reality as it invokes other universes.

There is no confirmation on more than one universe let alone many of them! Yet, this is where the theory of inflation has lead them because they deny the real evidence that is showing (as an estimate) the universe to be no older than 10,000 years old. Sounds more like something out of Hollywood rather than coming from scientists themselves.

But his imagination might win him a Nobel Prize award because it doesn’t allow scientists to follow the evidence rather it allows scientists to follow a fictional story that is fitted. It is one of the biggest bluffs of all time! But there is no way getting around the evidence, which does confirm the frame work of the Bible :)

In “The Grand Design” Hawking and Mlodinow, who are one of the greatest minds in atheism (evolution) place their central argument around this statement…

“Because the law of gravity and the quantum vacuum exist, therefore, the universe will create itself from nothing.”

Here is a translation of that…

“Because something and something else exists, therefore, some other thing will create itself from nothing.”

Scientists for the Cassini mission have found indirect evidence of a liquid ocean beneath its surface using gravity measurements that contained anomalies during the spacecraft’s flybys. The original paper downplays this possible discovery. But other publications hypes this up as a possible discovery for life!

“The ocean lies between the moon’s rocky core and a layer of thick ice, and is estimated to be about the size of Lake Superior. That’s large for a moon that is only 310 miles (500 kilometers) in diameter and could fit within the borders of Arizona.

In our solar system, the only other moon known to have similar contact between liquid water and rock is Jupiter’s Europa. Both the rock and the water are considered to be essential for the chemistry that could, over eons, turn nonliving matter into living entities.“

“Enceladus’ geysers blast material hundreds of miles into space, offering a way to sample the moon’s subsurface ocean from afar. (Researchers think the ocean is feeding the geysers, though they can’t be sure of this at the moment.)

Cassini has already done some of this work with its mass spectrometer, detecting salts and organic compounds — the carbon-based building blocks of life as we know it — in Enceladus’ plumes during flybys of the moon.”

Origin of life theories invokes extreme explanations based on man’s imagination and then call it, ‘science’…because it’s naturally based rather than supernaturally based. While these researchers talk a big game about what they believe can happen with water and rocks over a long period of time, what they don’t tell you that for years scientists have been trying to produce non-living chemicals to living chemicals and have been unsuccessful.

Not only that but an interview by Steve Benner from the University of Florida that preceded the origin-of-life conference in 2013, revealed…

“We have failed in any continuous way to provide a recipe that gets from the simple molecules that we know were present on early Earth to RNA. There is a discontinuous model which has many pieces, many of which have experimental support, but we’re up against these three or four paradoxes, which you and I have talked about in the past.”

The first paradox is the tendency of organic matter to devolve and to give tar. If you can avoid that, you can start to try to assemble things that are not tarry, but then you encounter the water problem, which is related to the fact that every interesting bond that you want to make is unstable, thermodynamically, with respect to water.“

“If you can solve that problem, you have the problem of entropy, that any of the building blocks are going to be present in a low concentration; therefore, to assemble a large number of those building blocks, you get a gene-like RNA — 100 nucleotides long — that fights entropy.”

“And the fourth problem is that even if you can solve the entropy problem, you have a paradox that RNA enzymes, which are maybe catalytically active, are more likely to be active in the sense that destroys RNA rather than creates RNA.”

So how can these scientists tell us there could be life on other planets with these major problems that exist with their theory? And all they are hoping for is something turning up at one of their conferences!

Let’s put it this way, it’s like creating a pond of salt water, and put rocks in it. The pond will have access to air and weather changes. Do you really believe that the pond will eventually create life forms?

Another question arises, and that is it’s age, assumed to be 4.5 billion years old. Even in their own speculation, the ocean could only last 100 million years at most. Science (the journal) suggests, “tidally kneading” but even their own endorsed scientists the heat flux requires more than what has been observed with tidal heating!

While it doesn’t make sense for evolution, it does make sense for creationism. Cassini is discovering a youthful solar system rather than an old one, this confirms creationism!

The universe is undermining the uniformity which is the holy grail of secular astronomy of the supposed evolution of galaxies. Astronomers continue to find mature galaxies in deep space with better technology which fifteen years ago would have never been considered by cosmologists to exist despite the fact that Hubble began its discoveries of mature galaxies in deep space during 1995.

In an article“Galaxies In the Early Universe Mature Beyond Their Years”…

“The mature galaxies were found at a record-breaking distance of 12 billion light years, seen when the Universe was just 1.6 billion years old. Their existence at such an early time raises new questions about what forced them to grow up so quickly.”

“These distant and early massive galaxies are one of the Holy Grails of astronomy,” Director of the Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing at Swinburne University of Technology, Professor Karl Glazebrook, who was involved in the discovery, said.”

“Fifteen years ago they were predicted not to even exist within the cosmological model favoured at the time. In 2004 I wrote a paper on the discovery of such galaxies existing only three billion years after the Big Bang. Now, with improved technology we are pushing back to only 1.6 billion years, which is truly exciting.”

These fifteen newly discovered galaxies with no evidence of star formation are just as large as our Milky Way. Normally when there is increased complexity in a theory, a new one is developed. Or as Thomas Kuhn would say, anomalies accumulate until a new paradigm replaces it. But Kuhn also said, “normal science” is a puzzle to be solved. When it comes to evolution of anything whether it be earth or the universe, most explanations based on their framework is “normal science”, making it harder for shifts outside of it to occur.

For example, dark matter was invoked to hold the universe together, which began very expensive projects to detect it directly even though they have no clue what they are looking for. What would be the odds in discovering what the properties are by accident? That’s if dark matter really exists at all. These expenses could be used for other things in science. Then there is dark energy, which was invented to explain the universe’s acceleration. Neither has this been detected directly.

Now imagine scientists coming up with a story on how stars form hundreds of times faster than previously believed. Keep in mind there is a difference between observation and explanation. Just because scientists can now observe things like never before, doesn’t mean they know how it came about. It’s like macro-evolution, no chemist in the world both past and present understands it but they use circular reasoning to believe in it because they believe evolution to be true.

Take Professor James M. Tour as an example. He’s one of the best chemists in the world who wrote hundreds of papers that was published in well-known peer-review publications, he states…“most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”

This happens in cosmology as well. And the reason for this is because they believe in faulty models, instead of following where the evidence leads, they try to shape it so their faulty models remain intact.

Professor James M. Tour is not a creationist neither an intelligent design proponent, but rather believes in evolution. His failed quest to search for understanding of origins about how dead chemicals become alive came to a halt. Nobody in the scientific community, not even an atheist group came forward as requested by him to give him understanding about evolution! Why? Because they don’t understand it either (and some don’t want to admit it in public) but rely on their belief in evolution that it did happen even though they have no viable theory on how it happened. You see, Professor James M. Tour makes molecules for a living and he knows first hand how complex it really is. This complexity makes all the more difficult to make molecules.

This is similar to supposed evolution of stars! Why would stars supposedly evolve in the early part of the universe so rapidly and others did not? Explanations that cannot be proved often times sounds better for the believer in evolution than the actual observation. If other universes become the accepted norm in the scientific community which I think will eventually happen in order to explain such formations, it could never be observed. It also possible they might settle for a dark mechanism and make predictions with that. Dark meaning, it has never been directly observed.

So one looks at their track record for predictions and it isn’t that good, uniformity is the holy grail of astronomy for many years and yet it has been falsified. For creationism, this is a confirmation of God’s handy work of the universe, and I believe there are more mature galaxies even further in space!

The majority of planetary scientists who embraced the idea of evolution as being factual, use predictions which based on old age assumptions. These old age assumptions contain billions of years. But there are problems with using those assumptions, because many times these predictions are discovered to be way off when direct observations are collected from space probes or telescopes.

Alan Boss who is an evolutionist himself, is concerned about progressing data in space exploration which is not matching with scientists predictions on the standard model of accretion into planetesimals. So he comes up with his own prediction in great detail to solve the problem.

“Boss’ new model demonstrateshow a phase of marginal gravitational instability in the gas disk surrounding a proto-sun, leading to an outburst phase, can explain all of these findings. The results are applicable to stars with a variety of masses and disk sizes. According to the model, the instability can cause a relatively rapid transportation of matter between the star and the gas disk, where matter is moved both inward and outward. This accounts for the presence of heat-formed crystalline particles in comets from the solar system’s outer reaches.”

One thing you will noticed, computer models rather than direct evidence always makes the supposed evolution of our solar system seem more theoretically practical and more possible. There is no doubt that planetary scientists are very skilled at coming up with various stories which nobody has ever came close to observing in order to keep the data within the old age assumptions.

In contrast, we can obtain a fairly decent feel on how old the solar system really is based on the evidence, by observing processes which are happening in the present. For example, Titan’s processes are far from appearing to be billions of years old!

Titan’s methane has caused some serious problems with old age assumptions, why? Because as pointed out in space.com, Titan’s methane is not being replenished fast enough! As a result, the evidence indicates there is not enough compound to keep the cycle sustainable over a long period of time! So now it’s being predicted to dry up in the future!

But in order to keep Titan’s age in the billions of years, they come up with what? I’ll give you a hint, it’s been used quite often on other planets and moons in our solar system in an attempt to rescue old age assumptions or even to explain the origin of life. If you are not familiar, it’s high impacts. “The team suggests that the current load of methane at Titan may have come from some kind of gigantic outburst from the interior eons ago possibly after a huge impact.” There is no evidence of a reservoir of methane which exists under Titan’s surface! What you don’t see helps the story, what you do see hinders it!

In Science now, describes how flat Titan’s surface is, another indication there was no huge impact! To explain why Titan is so flat, it’s “crust isn’t strong enough to support tall mountains or because its thick atmosphere unleashes methane rains that erode them away.”

Wait a minute, then it wouldn’t be possible for Jupiter’s moon lo which is smaller than Titan, which supports global volcanism on its surface to contain high mountains! But lo does in fact contain high mountains on its surface!

Pluto is the next to defy old age assumptions. Planetary scientists are gearing up, the spacecraft is set to make its very first flyby in 2015. And as we speak, more predictions are being formulated based on old earth assumptions, but this time, they added on the prediction of surprises that are going to “befuddle” them. Those type of surprises usually comes from problems with the data falsifying old age assumptions in which they set out to fix with creative stories. In any case, it’s going to be exciting to see what the spacecraft uncovers using direct observations!

And what last note, today is the six-year anniversary of this blog, it’s hard to believe that much time has gone by so quickly! It’s been a fun ride so far and looking forward to new discoveries in the future!

The mission of the Cassini spacecraft which started in 2005, and remains on duty to this day, is quite a remarkable accomplishment. Cassini has gathered much needed direct observations which we can learn from. Water ice-jets which create ice grains escape the moon’s gravity providing material for one of Saturn’s rings.

What surprised scientists who believe in the solar system being billions of years old, was the fact that Enceladus is active, creating heat (5.8 gigawatts) where its supposed old age of billions of years should have frozen it out because of its long distance from the sun and as NASA points out, “Enceladus just doesn’t have the bulk needed for its interior to stay warm enough to maintain liquid water underground.”

Tidal heating became the only option for the source of the heat discovered on Encelaadus. And scientists have been trying to fit it into this theory ever since. Here is one of the tests…

“Scientists with the Cassini team created a map of the gravitational tidal stress on the moon’s icy crust and compared it to a map of the warm zones created using Cassini’s composite infrared spectrometer instrument (CIRS). Assuming the greatest stress is where the most friction occurs, and therefore where the most heat is released, areas with the most stress should overlap the warmest zones on the CIRS map.

“However, they don’t exactly match,” says Dr. Terry Hurford of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. “For example, in the fissure called the Damascus Sulcus, the area experiencing the greatest amount of shearing is about 50 kilometers (about 31 miles) from the zone of greatest heat.”

With this falsification, evolutionary scientists invoke a wobble that creates heat beyond what tidal heating does. The question I would pose to such a theory beyond the “wobble” would be, why are neighboring moons like Mimas which is bigger than Enceladus and endures more tidal stress than Enceladus is not active?

Back in January of 2010, evolutionary scientists from NASA tried math, and here is their conclusion…

“Calculations told scientists it would be impossible for Enceladus to have continually produced heat and gas at this rate. Tidal movement – the pull and push from Saturn as Enceladus moves around the planet – cannot explain the release of so much energy.”

Now what, try a different theoretical approach? Evolutionary scientists are in the business of preserving theories for as long as possible rather than proposing new ones, because many times it’s based on popularity among them and also where a pattern of funding for the research is plentiful. In a recent publication space.com which originated in Nature, we see Enceladus being fitted for a theory…

“Dione is pulling in a rhythmic way on Enceladus and preventing its orbit from circularizing, which it would otherwise do,” Spencer, who wrote a commentary in Nature about this research, said. “[Enceladus] is sometimes a bit closer to Saturn than at other times, and that means that the tidal stresses that Saturn imposes on Enceladus … are constantly varying, so Enceladus is continually being stretched and twisted by those forces, whereas if it were in a circular orbit, those forces would be constant and nothing would change.”

“These tidal forces could be responsible for heating up the interior of the moon, Spencer said. Tidal heating — the distortion of the moon’s shape that produces heat through friction — could be a reason for the moon’s warm interior, but that only explains part of the heat production.

“The amount of heat observed coming from Enceladus is larger than what scientists expect to observe theoretically, Spencer said.”

“There are certainly details to be worked out, but there is no other reason for Enceladus to be so extraordinary compared to its neighbors other than that it has tidal friction from Saturn’s tides that is heating the interior,” Spencer said. “We’ve known that for a long time, and this [research] is actually going to give us a nice handle on how that works because we’re directly seeing the effects of those tides.”

This is a typical problem with evolutionary research, they try and bluff their way through when their theory doesn’t match up with direct observations. Promising its readers it’s going to eventually be a scientific breakthrough. However, being fitted is one thing, but direct observations suggest, Enceladus is much younger than 4.5 billion years old and was designed by God!

The stars were always an interest in my youth, learning about their range in color indicating their surface temperature for instance, the coolest stars are red while the hottest stars are orange. The temps in various stars range from anywhere 3,000 to 40,000 Kelvins.

Stars also have different brightness to them. The way scientists can determine how bright a star is, is by color and size of the star. Blue stars shine brighter than cooler red stars which are of the same size while giant stars shine more brightly than little dwarf stars.The common elements which stars of made of are, hydrogen and helium gas. When you combine all the mass from these elements, it creates a gravitational field much stronger than earth’s which prevents the gas from dispersing out into space. Astronomers who embrace evolution, believe that stars randomly form from a collapsed nebula.

A nebula is an enormous “cloud” of extremely low-density hydrogen and helium gas. Gravity is required to keep the gas from escaping so compression is required but compression causes other problems. If a gas cloud were to compress, it would cause increased pressure, increase its magnetic field, and its rotation speed which would resist more compression! In other words, these factors would halt anymore compression, thus no gravity to keep the gas from escaping into space.

Spiral Galaxies like our Milky Way are a collection of many hundreds of billions of stars which rotate. Since it’s not a solid object, stars rotate at different rates within the spiral galaxy. The stars at the edge revolve more slowly than they do at the center of the galaxy. The spiral arms get tighter with each rotation. What this means is, a spiral galaxy is twisting itself up. How does this relate to confirming creationism? Since these galaxies are wrapping themselves up, if they were many millions or even billions of years old, these galaxies would have wrapped themselves all up beyond recognition but being thousands of years old they continue to display majestic beauty that we can all enjoy and observe!

In the beginning of this year, a spiral galaxy known as BX442 dubbed as the ‘grand design spiral galaxy’ was discovered. by a team of astronomers from the University of Toronto and UCLA using the Hubble Space Telescope. Secular astronomers place the time frame 10.7 billion years ago. This discovery falsifies the big bang theory! How?

In the Big Bang theory, galaxies in the early universe were not well defined. In the first several billion years of so-called stellar evolution, most galaxies were supposed to be in their infant stages of growth which are suppose to look irregular and unorganized. The last thing one expect to find in the early part of the universe is a highly advanced design of a spiral galaxy! So not only do spiral galaxies confirm the universe is thousands of years old rather than billions of years old, it also does not agree with the popular big bang theory on how they appear at various stages in the universe!